CRIME LAB DISPUTE HITS COURT : HUNDREDS OF DUI CASES AT STAKE.

Byline: Jesse Hiestand Daily News Staff Writer

A Superior Court judge Wednesday began grappling with a ``procedural nightmare'' as defense attorneys lined up to have hundreds of drunk-driving cases dismissed based on alleged errors by the Ventura County sheriff's crime lab.

Judge Steven Perren methodically took on a tangle of overlapping and conflicting legal issues in juggling requests from six defense attorneys, two prosecutors and four subpoenaed crime lab officials.

``This is a major issue - it involves public confidence in the very system we serve,'' Perren said.

No testimony was taken and no cases were directly challenged Wednesday. It was the first in a series of hearings that stem from the crime lab's loss of its alcohol-testing license, which has called into question the legality of both criminal convictions and pending cases.

Perren instead used the hearing to figure how many misdemeanor drunk-driving cases might be affected and how to handle the legal challenges.

By all accounts, the licensing flap has mushroomed in just the past week. Recent estimates by attorneys that dozens of drunk-driving cases might have to be retried or dismissed were raised significantly Wednesday.

``The entire scope is a little undetermined as to the numbers, but it is in the hundreds,'' Deputy Public Defender Brian Vogel told the judge.

Defense attorney Robert Huber, representing eight people charged or convicted of driving under the influence, said 1,500 cases could be affected if the crime lab's problems are traced back to Nov. 16.

On that day, Norm Fort - the only forensic alcohol supervisor at the county Sheriff's Department's Crime Laboratory - retired unexpectedly. As his replacement was being sought, a technician failed a routine test given by the California Department of Health Services in March, and the state agency suspended the lab's license to test alcohol levels in blood, urine and breath samples.

Between March 19 and the state's renewal of the license Friday, all blood and urine testing was done at the state Department of Justice lab in Santa Barbara.

Much of the controversy leading to Wednesday's hearing involved a decision by sheriff's officials to continue testing breath samples through early May. Most of the cases being scrutinized are from the period between mid-March and early May, when prosecutors filed criminal charges based on breath evidence gathered by the unlicensed lab.

Defense attorneys contend that the main reason they want cases dismissed is that prosecutors failed to disclose the lab's licensing status, withholding evidence that could have helped defendants.

Assistant Public Defender Jean Farley said her office has gone further and is looking into all cases dating back to November that involve not only breath but blood and urine tests as well.

``It's just a nightmare,'' she said, describing the work she and other staff members have done during the past few weeks.

Farley said her office has been inundated with calls from people wondering if their cases were affected by the crime lab's problems, which she described as ``an embarrassment to our system of justice.''

On Wednesday, in a move that startled defense attorneys, the county District Attorney's Office representative said there has never been a problem with the lab's certification because the lab never actually lost its alcohol-testing license.

``Mistakenly, the crime lab was under the impression that its license had been lapsed,'' according to court documents filed by Deputy District Attorney Kevin Drescher. ``It was not lost, suspended or expired.''

Drescher contended that the crime lab successfully petitioned for a 90-day license extension Dec. 19 by naming an experienced lab employee, Halle Weingarten, as temporary forensic alcohol supervisor.

When the 90-day period ended and a full-time forensic alcohol supervisor still was not in place, state officials informed the lab it ``should not'' perform any blood, urine or breath tests for alcohol, Drescher said.

Blood and urine tests were sent to the state lab, but the sheriff's crime lab continued to do breath testing because it had not been specifically told to stop, he said.

Prosecutors have said they were unaware of the ongoing breath testing until early May, when the state found out about it and put pressure on the lab to stop that testing as well.

With such disputes before him, Perren ordered each defense attorney to provide a complete list of all cases being challenged and file them along with a written explanation of the legal issues. The judge set a hearing for today to sort through the issues and schedule dates to take up each set of motions.

In the meantime, he urged the defense attorneys and prosecutors to meet informally to determine whether they can agree on the issues to be heard in court.

With hundreds of cases at stake, Perren said it would be better to resolve all of them with a ``global'' ruling as opposed to taking each one in turn.

``I just don't see ruling case by case,'' he said.

``It seems I should start with the big picture and see if that resolves it.''

To that end, he suggested, ``the major, defining, overall issue is that when the state doesn't play fair, do you still play the game?''

Perren also ordered five subpoenaed sheriff's personnel to be ready to testify on a day's notice. They include temporary crime lab supervisor, Capt. Leslie Warren, and the lab's new forensic alcohol supervisor, Dea Boehme.

Defense attempts to subpoena Sheriff Larry Carpenter and lab supervisor Cmdr. William Wade, who is on a stress-related leave of absence, will be challenged, said Deputy County Counsel Frank Sieh.